Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Quick recapitulation:1) Fjordman wrote a highly interesting article about the Proposition Nation, and how this made treason against ourselves the norm among white people. Putting his blow torch under the asses of USA, France and the Enlightenment.2) Señor NaziUniform enters the room claiming that we should instead put blame on the goblins. (The thing is that Señor NaziUniform will always bring up the goblins in every discussion even if the topic had been Medieval Celtic beer production. And he will always blame any problems on the goblins. He is constitutionally unable to talk about anything else.)3) The minds of the other people there went into red alert mode (as it always does whenever goblins are brought up) and they were unable to focus on the discussion that Fjordman had intended. The room becomes a pandemonium of heated arguments about how many problems that are due to goblins, while others claim that goblins do not exist (at least not as a group, at least not if you say something negative about them as a group). Next someone calls out that there are actually goblins present in the room, and the goblin says that this is a goblin room, and someone else says that we should always stand by World of Warcraft, etc. No one manages to focus on Fjordman's article, or on America, France or the Enlightenment.

This is what happened so far... except that it wasn't about goblins. It was about... this other ethnic group... the Finns?

It is an objective fact that the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation as a concept is a child of the Western Enlightenment and has been disproportionately spread by the USA and France in particular. That was the subject of my original essay. I have gradually come to realize that some of the crucial problems the West suffers from today can probably be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It is an objective fact that the direct intellectual input of Jews when it comes to shaping Enlightenment thought, with the possible exception of Spinoza, was tiny.

The Enlightenment was a creation of Europeans, and if we suffer from its effects today this is largely our own fault. We shouldn’t blame others for it, be that the Chinese, the Muslims or the Jews.

Well, no surprises there for anyone who knows history. No goblins behind the birth of the Proposition Nation. And this is all in line with what Ferdinand Bardamu wrote a year ago in his article "What's wrong with white nationalism?"

- - - - - - - - -Quoting from the article:

And there we run into our first problem with white nationalism – it doesn’t confront the core of what is wrong with the West. White nationalists are right that multiculturalism and ethnic infighting are serious issues, but they don’t recognize that the tribal soup that America, Britain and other white nations are drowning in is not the cause of those nations’ decline, but a symptom. To demonstrate this, I will use the time-honored method of the Socratic dialogue:

White Nationalist: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!

Ferdinand Bardamu: Tally ho, chap. I say, what are you agitating about?

WN: I want my white brothers and sisters to throw off their shackles and fight the enemies who are trying to wipe them out.

FB: I see. And just who are the enemies of the white race?

WN: The Jews! They control the government, the media, and Wall Street, and they’re trying to ethnically cleanse us from our own nation by robbing us, importing foreigners to replace us, and encouraging miscegenation with lesser races. And the Negroes! They’re slaughtering us in the streets and raping our women!

FB: Okay, Jews and Negroes are bad. But weren’t white people responsible for letting the Jews in this country and allowing them to participate in public life to begin with?

WN: Uhhhh…

FB: And the Negroes – weren’t they brought here from Africa as slaves and later emancipated by white people?

WN: Errrrr…

FB: Wouldn’t this mean that these problems that white people suffer from are basically self-inflicted?

WN: Ummmm…WHITE POWER!

White nationalism doesn’t address why all of these alien tribes have popped up in our midst. WNs like to blame these and other problems on the Jews, and while I acknowledge that they’ve had a disproportionate, malign influence, the fact of the matter is that the ideology that wrecked the West, liberalism, originates from whites. (Note: for the purposes of this essay only, I will regard Jews as a separate entity from whites.) The intellectual forbears of modern liberalism and its offshoot ideologies like multiculturalism and feminism were all gentiles – 17th and 18th century thinkers like John Locke, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith. The Jewish establishment in the modern West is merely a vector for a white-created disease of the mind.

And even if we accept the premise that Jews and Jewish influence are primarily responsible for the mess we’re in, that doesn’t absolve whites from blame. The Jews didn’t invade America, Britain or any other country en masse and forcibly take over their institutions – they were invited by the natives. Prior to their emanicipation in the 19th century, Jews were despised and persecuted everywhere they went, and had little to no influence on the societies they settled in. That’s why the neoconservative description of the West as “Judeo-Christian” should make educated people laugh – Jews had about as much influence on pre-Enlightenment Europe as the Gypsies. Jewish emancipation was a product of liberalism, as the first European state to grant them full legal rights was revolutionary France in 1791. If Jews have fired the bullet into the head of white civilization, whites themselves are culpable for letting them touch the gun to begin with.

The fact of the matter, that white nationalists are either unwilling or unable to address, is that white people are their own worst enemy.

The whole article is worth reading. Read it here. There is much more to why White Nationalism is problematic.

So how can we have a proper discussion about how white people are the ones destroying ourselves, and the memes driving it? Well, clearly we'll have to send anyone in Nazi uniform or anyone obsessing about goblins out of the room. Even someone obsessing about Muslims or Hispanics will be useless and disruptive in this discussion. Quite as those obsessing about the Jews. But the last one is worse since it will take the whole room into red alert mode (as described above).

The only thing that the energetic writing and commenting by Chechar and Tanstaafl have lead to is to make open blog discussions about Jews a dead end. I didn't think in this way before, but they have changed the landscape now. Some people who would otherwise say something about the issue will be repelled from it by them. And in this polarized situation, some people who would otherwise have kept a more balanced stance will be sucked into their warp. This since, at least to newcomers, Chechar and Tanstaafl will appear as the brave ones who dare bringing up the "truths".

It's really a pity it has gone this way. A few years ago there were several very informative discussions about the Jewish question over at Gates of Vienna. Plenty of people from Eastern Europe made great contributions there back then.

31 comments:

I can't argue with any of it -- this is a concise and accurate exposition of the problem we face, one that is unlikely to be solved in our lifetimes -- or even in this millennium.

As a matter of complete coincidence, I just posted excerpts from Lee Harris' explanation of the difference between Burkean and Lockean concepts of liberty. You might be interested in what he has to say, even though it is mainly from an American perspective.

1. This world will look very different by the end of this century. So the whole thing could possibly have become irrelevant. But there will always be some sort of "goblins" that people will obsess about. That seems to be a constant throughout human history.

2. Very nice post you made about Lee Harris. And you know that I love Burke. And as a matter of complete coincidence I posted a music video on the same theme before I saw your comment :-)

America was founded in opposition to Europe's ancien regime and the old order of the "kings and despots", as an act of rebellion against the British crown. Nowhere in the founding documents of the US there's a connection or even a hint to a common European heritage. The Founding Fathers were, essentially, Jacobins: it's just the relatively peaceful developments of the American Rewolution and the weak opposition of the British Empire that hindered them to use the guillotine.

But the Jacobin/guillotinish proclivities surfaced 80 years later when the insubordinate South had to be forcibly incorporated in the Union. The Civil War was America's Reign of Terror, a bloodbath to squash the opposition. Besides, the South developed a social system resembling the old order, with the landlords as an incipient form of aristocracy, and, as we know, there's nothing that enrages a Jascobin more than (even the slightest form) of aristocracy. So, the opposition was squashed, the slaves were liberated, and Pax Jacobina descended upon Earth.

To make the things worse, not only politically, but also religiously America was anti-Europe since the beginning. The stock of Mayflower was Puritan, and Puritanism means sola Scriptura on steroids. Thus, their religious narrative is based on building "a city upon a hill", "the new Jerusalem", "a light onto the nations", and the Puritans are the new Jews seeking liberation from Egypt and the Pharaoh - Europe's ancien regime and the British crown. They were like this before leaving Europe, actually, they viewed themselves as participants in a religious revolution. While the authority of the church had been a hindrance against this kind of interpretation, the extreme form of Protestantism professed by the Puritans is, excuse my expression, the ideal environment for weirdos.

Thus, America doesn't need the Jews to be Judeo-America: it's been Judeo-America, religiously speaking, all along. And that's why they identify themselves with what they perceive as "the oppressed", and they intervened in WWI to squash Europe's empires (Wilson) or they bombed Serbia: they cannot possibly position themselves on the side of the majority or the European old order. "The new Jews" will always seek to help other stocks of "new Jews" (whom they perceive as such) and they'll always try to annihilate "the Pharaoh". That's how the crackpot-ish mind of the Puritan works.

And the only hope Americans can have is to drop completely the founding documents, including the Constitution, to proclaim secession, take their guns, raise the Confederate flag and defeat the Jacobins. Then they should write a new Declaration of Independence, where America is defined as a nation for people of European descent, instead of a state where "all men are created equal". Until then, they're just permanent squashers (I don't know if such a word exists) of Europe, the old order, ancien regimes.

Now, let's go back to Europe. On the GoV thread somebody asked if there's a true American conservative the commenters know, somebody who would think, for example, that granting citizenship to Blacks was a bad idea. An American commenter gave an example of a thinker that seems a genuine conservative, to the point of rejecting the Constitution (one of the tenets of the Proposition Nation). But individual examples do not matter in the general ideological landscape; in Europe, the fatherland of the Enlightenment, there's always been a counter-balance to the progressive ideals, what the Russian Berdyaev called "the philosophy of inequality". It started with Burke and (an even better example) the French Joseph de Maistre (it's a fine article on Alternative Right comparing the two thinkers, written by a Norwegian, Metternich). And their spiritual heirs live even today, like the French often quoted by Fjordman, Guillaume Faye (it's worth noticing that the country of the Revolution produced also some fine examples of "reactionary" thinkers, probably because the clash between the old and the new order was colossal in France).

Anyway, be they pragmatic conservatives, "altar and throne" conservatives or just observers of the decline and pathologies of the West (Nietzsche, Spengler), the counter-reaction to the Enlightement is specifically European, and almost non-existent in the US.

And that's how we enter the XXth century, accompanied by the Burkean paradigm: taking sides vis-a-vis the Enlightenment and its revolutions.

It should be noted that, in Europe, the XIXth century was the century of radicalism: the bourgeoise revolutions in 1848, Marxism, La Commune de Paris, the first ideas to introduce the universal suffrage. Following the logic of the revolution, Girondins are replaced by Jacobins who are replaced by Bolsheviks.

One of the unfortunate occurences is that the birth of the nation states coincided with the rise of radical democracy. While based on old tribalistic or group allegiances, the political structure of the nation state is usually inspired by the Enlightenment: Constitution, elections, citizenship, individual or collective rights. In the beginning of the XXth century, assaulted by both European political radicalism and Americanization, the old order is gone, there's almost nothing to preserve. The only survivors of the old Europe are the British and the Tsarist empires, the latter dealing with a substantial besiege of revolutionary movements (and dealing with them in the only logical way: send the thugs to Siberia). WWI is the swan song of traditional Europe.

So, the irony is: the nation state is a creation of democracy, but democracy, being more and more inclusive, is gradually killing the nation state or the ethnicity on which it is based. Then, in the 20s, a former Socialist, Mussolini, came with the idea to inject revolutionary energy in nationalism, to counter-atack both internationalist Bolshevism and cosmopolitan Americanization. Fight fire with fire: that's how nationalist regimes came to power in the 20s-30s in some European countries. Then, the new Zeitgeist is born in Europe: revolutionary nationalism versus revolutionary internationalism. Then Hitler enters the scene, after the nightmare called the Weimar Republic, which means both Americanization (some fine analysis can be found on Mencius Moldbug's blog) and Bolshevik agitations at their peak. The nightmare is followed by a tragedy.

In 1989, after the fall of Communism, America remains the only super-power of the West, without a rival. Pax Jacobina has reached consensus among the elites, and probably it will remain so in the next decades.

Anyway, regarding the next American elections, I agree with Medvedev, the Russian president, and I will take Obama over the Republicans any time of the day. The Democrats are incompetent regarding foreign policy; the Republicans (neocon war-mongers and evangelical freedom-obsessed idiots) are both incompetent and insane. The open hostility towards Russia and China is a threat to world stability. Or maybe I can choose the Republicans, but only if I know in advance that Russia or China will destroy them.

I have to add something regarding the demonization of the Russians and the Germans, a mindset which can be often found among Americans or Americanized European types. The same way modern France and America are incarnations of the Enlightenment ideals, the Russians and the Germans were, usually, the counter-reaction, both in thinking ("the philosophy of inequality") and in practice (defining their nations based on ethnicity). The demonization started before Hitler, and even before the Bolshevik Revolution: the Tsar and the Kaiser were the ultimate bad guys in the eyes of progressivists everywhere, and especially in Judeo-Jacobin America, the epitome of the European ancien regime, the symbols of the "dark age". The tsar even more, particularly because the Tsarist empire was sane enough to deal ruthlessly with the revolutionary types (send them to Siberia) and to find a solution to the minority problem, the Pale of Settlement.

And that's why Republicans use the usual scarecrow: "beware of the Russians", knowing very well that it resonates with the prejudices of their voters. Plus, that's why we have the neocon hysteria regarding not only the Russians, but anybody who has a friendly or at least not hateful attitude towards Russia. Actually it's one of the few points when Republicans criticize the Eurocrats: not hostile and suspicious enough towards Russia. And that's why W. Wilson welcomed and praised the Bolshevik Revolution: for a progressivist Jacobin, the tsar being defeated is the ultimate victory.

I was I, a European commenter, who gave the example of Fitzhugh - a Confederate pamphleteer. There's a few others but they are all from the Southern tradition, which is a dead tradition.

Thanks, European commenter, and sorry for my mistake. Anyway, I could bet that Fitzhugh was a Southerner since you mentioned him on GoV, considering my post above about the South vs. the Judeo-Jacobins :)

Interesting comments. This is your commentary to the discussion about the Proposition Nation. The first two were like Nietzschean diatribes (for good and for bad). If you write the whole thing together as one piece, I'll publish it as an article.

What you say here is of course an old theme of my own, but at least initially you express it more strongly, and you add many interesting perspectives to it.

The remedy for Europe is to get America out of the way, so we can have a more pronounced presence of Germany and Russia here, but also of traditional European conservatives in all of our countries. And that spells exactly the reversal of NATO, which purpose is precisely "to keep America in, to keep Russia out and to keep Germany down."

For the Americans an implosion of NATO is just the start of the remedy. For the freedom of the Americans the breakdown of the USA would be as essential as the breakdown of the USSR was to the freedom of the Russians. The USA is so much worse for the Americans than the EU is for the Europeans. This since the EU is such a weak creation. Which would self-implode the moment NATO is gone. Well, most likely before.

The dissolvement of the USA would free the "Confederate" Americans of the Southern tradition. I we take your "the Civil War was America's Reign of Terror" seriously, that suggests that the Americans of the Southern tradition are as badly demonized and bullied into silence as Germans are post-WWII.

Whenever America is discussed Baron brings up these other Americans who reside in the "flyover" country. And quite as there were Russians who hated the USSR, I'm sure there are Americans who hate the USA. But we do not hear much from them do we? As Sean pointed out, there are no longer any writers in this Southern tradition. And on the Internet we do not hear from them either (in spite of the numerical dominance of Americans).

Or is it that those of Southern tradition, who are not completely bullied into self-hate and silence, will turn up at Stormfront etc.? I'm sure it is better to meet these people in real life, as the Baron does, than to see the result of their obsessing about Jews etc. when sitting in front of the computer.

The criticism of the Proposition Nation is a call for freedom for these "Confederate" Americans. And will give them something better to think of then the Jews. It's the USA they should hate, and I'm sure many of them already do. In order to reach them we should be careful in making the distinction between USA (USSR) and America/Americans (Russia/Russians). We wouldn't want to be some sort of inverted Republicans and hate the Americans (Russians) for the faults of the USA (USSR).

I we take your "the Civil War was America's Reign of Terror" seriously, that suggests that the Americans of the Southern tradition are as badly demonized and bullied into silence as Germans are post-WWII.

But they are! Actually, I should add the Southerners/the Confederates on the black list of demonized groups, along Germans and Russians. It's enough to read a mainstream newspaper, to watch television, to see the typical Hollywood movie, etc. The Southerners are portrayed as Klansmen/stupid hillbilies, the same way Germans are portrayed in Nazi roles or the Russians are dangerous, mafia-types, weird, insane. Yes, the Southerners are a good example of a demonized white group, strongly disliked and loathed by the New World Order.

CS, unlike you, I don't think the JQ is exactly a dead end. I think that't one the best ways to exemplify the perils and dangers of the proposition nation or the aftermath of Jacobinism. I could write a few long posts about why I think this way, but since I take into consideration the rules that you established on your blog, I'll leave it like that.

Well, obsession about Jews, Muslims or Hispanics will block the minds of people to look for the real "man behind the curtain".

These sort of obsessions are rather symptoms of the disease than the cure of it.

The JQ is worse than the others in the sense that not only are the ones obsessing about the Jews being useless and disruptive in the discussion (given that the purpose of the discussion is to look for a cure), but it distracts everyone in the room from thinking clearly.

Thus, the JQ is a dead end for public debates.

I would also claim that the JQ, even in a distinguished and intelligent discourse, is only a way of describing the symptoms of our civilizational disease, and does not address the needed cure. Thus, it is a dead end when searching for a cure.

But there are no rules against discussing the JQ intelligently at my blog when it's on-topic. And I believe it's on-topic now. So speak your hearts content!

It's interesting, from the link you provided above, The Redneck Manifesto, how the former aristocratic-prone South is perceived by the progressivists as the group/land of the hillbillies. But actually there's no surprise here: one of the lies of the progressivists is that aristocrats are completely disconnected from the commoners. Actually, it's exactly the Jacobins that were perceived as illegitimate, coup d'état types by the people (for obvious reasons). Basically, the French Revolution meant a few dozens revolutionaries whose only allies were a few thousands homeless of Paris: meanwhile, the peasants of Vendée were massacred for defending their king. And that's why the most patriotic, crown-lover types in the UK can be found among the drunkards of the working class. Equally, that's why the Bolshevik Revolution started with a mass-murder of the most reactionary class: the peasants.

The "elitist" sophisticated progressivists know they don't have any legitimacy in the eyes of the people: that's why they use the "redneck" cliché.

Well, the South is the land of hillbillies. Only a few were "aristocratic" land-owners, duh! The vast majority were poor white (trash), many of which had been deported there just as forcefully as the black.

The real upper-class are the bourgeoisie of New England. The most "egalitarian" ones in their ideological zeal, yeah. But we know this is all phony babbling. They have always played blacks and rednecks against each other to distract the attention of all the troubles that they caused themselves.

The plight of the rednecks is: 1) to first having been forcefully deported to the U.S. South working as slaves, and next 2) being demonized as the ones being guilty of the slavery in the South (which is now depicted as a race issue).

This is all patently absurd, and completely at odds with truth, but it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie class of New England to describe it in this way.

It's so nice being the ruling class in a society. You can 1) enslave the poor people, and then you can 2) blame the same poor people for the slavery taking place. When you have the power of the word (media) and the gun (military), what you say is true by definition, even if it's self-contradicting and impossible. These are the principles for all sorts of bullying.

Armance, the problem is built in nationalism itself. Leaving away the fact that a lot of whites are attracted to Swedish, white, etc nationalism solely because of its egalitarian and claiming benefits just for being in a group, instead of viewing everything in a hierarchical fashion - not just groups, but individuals in groups, the real problem of it is that you can't have nationalism, which is ethnic states, without democracy and republicanism. You can have an ethnocentric population, but an ethnocentric state is hard to have. Take Hapsburg Austria. It was a multi-ethnic state, yet every ethnicity within it had an identity and was pretty much separate. I'm not exactly sure if republicanism creates nationalism at first or the other way around, but they are interconnected. And republics always do total wars. One of the inventions of the French Republic was national conscription and from then on all countries had to have it or they'd lose. National conscription meant the vote for all men. And mind you, when the whole country is involved in war, there are no civilians and the whole population of your opposing country becomes your enemy. From here you have the mass slaughter and mass rapes. The typical European wars were wars of professional armies with expensive soldiers and due to armies being a big cost, generals had to protect their soldiers. The way we used to war rewarded military genius when you made your enemy's army collapse. Since the rise of nationalism and nation states, we were rewarded with WW1 and mass killing and slaughter. Another problem with an ethnic state is the mania of how many non-ethnics should there be in the state. Sure, the state should make in Sweden, Swedish culture normative and be an agent of the Swedish people, but if you make it an openly ethnic state in nature problems of this nature will arise. You want an ethnic society, not an ethnic state.

This isn't a problem of national feeling in itself, but it is a problem of how Europeans understood nationalism and something typical to Europeans - egalitarianism. Another problem built into republics is the need to carry out ideological wars and all ideological wars require total victory, the beheading of your enemy's elite, building your own institutions in their country and the like. Japan offered conditional surrender in WW2 and the Americans declined it and nuked them into unconditional surrender.

Oh, and to sum it up, I don't like Russia. But not in the American way. I hate the current Russia and the 20th century Russia, not the historical Russian people and how Russia was. As ConservativeSwede points out, we shouldn't hate the Russian people nor the American people for their leaderships though.

This comment by you is so brilliant. I have been heading towards these conclusions myself, but you are here unlocking new insights for me, connecting the dots. I can now see the long winding history of humanity yet a bit clearer than before. You have dissolved another of those apparent paradoxes. I will have reason to get back to this later on.

you can't have nationalism, which is ethnic states, without democracy and republicanism.

This is the thesis of the French political philosopher Pierre Manent, developed in a few books, such as "Democracy without Nations? The Fate of Self-Government in Europe" (http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=d9eda640-7c4c-4cdf-8fcc-92ae3993bfed&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

The main idea is that modern European ethnic states cannot exist outside democracy and, the moment you throw away the nation state, the basis for democracy ceases to exist.

Another problem built into republics is the need to carry out ideological wars and all ideological wars require total victory, the beheading of your enemy's elite, building your own institutions in their country and the like.

The best example of an ideological war would be Napoleon, spreading the ideas of the Revolution in Europe, under the French national flag.

Armance, interesting book! Another book I came to think of during our discussions here is John Grisham's "A painted house", where there is the presence of white "hill people" as described above.

Regarding what you and RV have said about nationalism and the ethnostate: Egalitarianism (and it's sibling Universalism) is like gangrene that will spread step by step and destroy the whole body. It might start as a nation state (indeed a bourgeoisie egalitarian concept), but the gangrene will continue spreading so it is bound to end up in universalist multiculturalism etc.

RV mentioned in another thread also the politeness culture of the bourgeoisie, hence polite way of talking, and this is one of the fundaments of Political Correctness. Someone mentioned also America as the triumph of the average (the not to sophisticated middle class), and with all these things in the melting pot a brew of more poisonous gangrene developed.

Yes, now it makes sense. France was the first modern nation state and as I said in a post above, the political structure of the nation state is derived from the Enlightenment: Constitution, collective and individual rights, elections for broader and broader categories of citizens (and citizenship for minorities, as it happened immediately after the French Revolution). The nation state and the proposition nation are two sides of the same coin, egalitarianism.

Then, for the first time in European warfare, we had the "general conscription", "crush your enemy, impose your institutions" type of war: Napoleon. The Napoleonic wars were the prologue to WWI and WWII.

I have to add two premieres brought by the French Republic in Europe. One is probably well-known - citizenship for a whole minority. The second premiere was:

To build an alliance with the gens de couleur and slaves, the French commissioners Sonthonax and Polverel abolished slavery in the colony. Six months later, the National Convention led by Robespierre and the Jacobins endorsed abolition and extended it to all the French colonies.

More from Rebellious Vanilla (who maybe should get her Google or Open ID account fixed?):

To continue what I wrote earlier. Prior to the age of republicanism and of mass conscription, war was basically the realm of knights, kings and professional armies. The commoners had nothing to do with them besides paying taxes and the only wars in which they were involved were the ones in which you defended your own territory - since Armance is Romanian, she probably knows that most of our battles against the Turks involved having peasants conscripted into the army. I believe that this is one of the parts of the huge advantages that the defenders had, unlike the attackers(combined with the knowledge that if you lose, your women will become slave girls and all that).

So the question really is this. How can one return to a society in which the majority of the people actually mind their business and live their day to day lives? Politics and war are two sides of the same coin(von Clausewitz realized this too and said that war is simply politics in which you employ all the means available) and they should be handled by a professional class/caste. Since Conservative Swede is Swedish, he probably knows that the Norse had their society organized like this. I don't recall the names of the castes, but the warrior caste was at the top. Another problem is that our current castes of warriors are either degraded(the Swedish monarchy is a joke) or destroyed(the Hapsburgs). This system only works insofar as you have a caste that resembles the general population and is moved by a certain mythology not to abuse it(if you had the Swedish king become an absolute monarch, he'd probably continue the multiculturalist insanity).

In the same time, we got to the point where we MUST use the force of the state in an ethnic manner. In Sweden you had too many immigrants to intermarry with them and still be by all intents and purposes Swedish. So ethnic cleansing is inevitable if Swedish is to stay Swedish. Sure, you can keep the mixed kids, the completely assimilated people or some other small minority of Europeans that will blend into Swedishness eventually(or you can do what the Norse did and have a servant caste for them :P). So there's a lot of real work to be done in this regard too combined with a redefinition of citizenship and of voting systems. I'd like to point out that there's no inherent problem with voting - the Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy. The problem is having that 80% who isn't active politically vote and having the 20% who are involved be moved by the proper mythology.

One of the things we must avoid, I think, is being reactionary in the sense that we want to return to a certain point in history. This was proven to be a failure every single time it was attempted. What we need to do is take traditional-historical values and have a modern manifestation of those.

Armance, there's a fundamental problem within democracy, even within the same ethnic group. Do you really want the miners who had plancards with we don't think, we work in 1990 to rule you or some other group of fools? Being ruled by fools sucks, even if they are fools sharing your blood. So while nationalism enables democracy, it isn't really something we want. Hence why we need an ethnic society with a ruling caste. While we can deplore parts of our history when the monarchs were insane, as a rule, we were far better off then. Mind you, monarchs can't take as much power as the democratic state either since the people are inherently suspicious of them because they can't affect policy, even theoretically(practically, we can't now either). So even with bad monarchs, the policies affect you less. Do you honestly think that if Wilhelm was to say yes, we must bring a bunch of Somalis and Pakistanis to the Reich to enjoy the gifts of diversity the German people would have took any of it?! Ethnic feeling being divorced off politics allows it to be more cultural and hence more important.

Another problem of nationalism is that it makes all Swedes equal. I think that Conservative Swede prefers where he lives over the Swedes in other cities of Sweden. I prefer the dwellers of my city, or would have preferred if the communists wouldn't have moved the whole country here, over those of another city. We must remove ALL kinds of egalitarianism from our thinking. At least I reject it completely. Take someone who isn't involved here. If I was Fjordman, this is how I would view the world: me -> my family -> my city -> Norwegians -> Nordics -> Germanics -> Europeans -> mixed people with my co-ethnics -> the rest. Mind you, this doesn't mean that every Norwegian is better than every Nordic. If I was him, I'd prefer Conservative Swede over a Maxism spewing Norwegian. We must view the world as inherently unequal and hierarchical from both a descriptive and normative points of view.

To finish it off because I think this already will have to be broken into two comments. We must have what Nietzsche said, a reassessment of all values. And it doesn't stop at how we see the world, but at what matters in it. We must return to typically European things of value - honor, glory for men, chastity and submission for women(not the Islamic kind - even with its gender egalitarian culture, even in the Nordic countries women respected and obeyed their men) and duty for us both.

ConservativeSwede, the polite way of talking of the bourgeoisie is something I realized reading Nietzsche. He said that to a genteel woman, what can't be talked in the presence of police society doesn't exist. This is how WE are acting. Race doesn't exist, gender differences don't exist, the Earth is warming because I'm driving an Accord and not a Civic. And the others are just as bad. The opposite of the warmists are the silly cornucopains, for example. Or the socialists and libertarians - both knowing as much economics as my pet cat. There are two black holes in any debate and both are polar opposites of each other - and both are wrong. Dual thinking is completely foolish: it isn't just the debate of the Judeophiles and the people doing the sieg heil in their sleep, but every single debate about anything of substance is pointless to have because to quote a living philosopher someone with a raging hardon always storms in the room.

What we need to return to is basically something similar to an organic society - in which people have different roles, but they have roles nonetheless. A criticism of capitalism that Marx had and with which I agree is considering the worth of people based on their part in the economic system, which is flawed. I'm sure that all of us are better described by our interest in music, alcohol, our hobbies or whatever than our jobs, yet when we are asked what we are, we generally answer with our job. This needs to end. So classical liberalism is far from being a solution. On the other hand, there must a difference in between an organic society and an organic state. In order to get there, we must do what Confucius called a rectification of names. Mind you, the liberals did this in a twisted, inverted way, in which the achievers are evil and the like, which is a great cause of misery for both us and nonwhites because while we are demonized, they are set to a standard that they can't possibly achieve, which can only breed resentment.

Other problems that are fundamental to us is that we have to adjust our values to modernity, which is what I mentioned earlier. The problem is that the whole modern way of life is built on economic life and mass consumerism. We need to return to a state where we can ostracize people who externalize their costs or help them if they are worth it and are doing so because of freak occurrences in their lives (e.g a woman got raped, unemployment or whatever). This is fundamental because people who used to do great deals for the communities they were part of(e.g. merchants) because great social liabilities. No business owner wants mass immigration if he has to live in the community of the immigrants. He wants them provided OTHERS have to live in those communities. A lot of our problems stem from this issue. This is why I don't get people who think voting will change matters - we need to fundamentally change the way our societies function.

If any of you recall, I asked the commentators at Gates of Vienna, why would a Western man die to preserve the West, which is anti-male and anti-white? Faced with a binary choice in between this dystopia and Islam, any rational man would choose Islam, if rebuilding his own country in his own image isn't a possibility. When communism was dropped in China, it was replaced with the message "let's make China great". We need an inspiring message for our men if they are to do anything - a heroic West that needs to get reborn out of the ashes of the current apathetic one. These are the problems I see for us. The question is how can we rebuild this West once the current paradigm unravels. While the latter is a certainty, the former is an open ended question that someone will have to answer.

CS, regarding the JQ as an intelligent discussion, I don't know if you saw the documentary "Defamation", directed by an Israeli. It can be found on YouTube. Anyway, forget about the pro-Palestinian, Norman Finkelstein-ish parts of the movie (which are not very long anyway), and concentrate on the parts about how the mechanisms of guilt-tripping work regarding Europeans and Americans. I'm very curious about your insights, if you didn't see the movie before.

Thanks for your kindness, but this is the sort of comment that I do not want at this blog (since it's just an open-ended question).

I want comments that contribute something. By taking something I wrote and develop it further, or provide historical examples, or convince me that I'm wrong about something.

By posting an open-ended question, you expect nothing from yourself, and everything from me. You demand of me to contribute more, while you offer nothing yourself. That is neither fair nor constructive.

From people commenting here I expect that they are familiar with my previous writing. Familiar enough not to ask very basic open-ended questions. So do your home-work first, and then come back with more educated questions.

I hope you understand.

PS. The clue to the answer, anyway, is how political power rests on the shoulders of military power.